Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OK, I'm starting to think I might have to bring myself into the 21st century for my Fantasy RPG needs, and it looks as it PATHFINDER might be the way to go.

Can some kid soul out there tell me what the biggest difference are between it and AD&D 1E/2E?

I've never played a game of 3.0 or 3.5 (which, I gather, it most resembles!)...

It is either this, or go without a local RPG group, I think.

Thanks!

I don't have Pathfinder myself, but I do have 3.0 and a bit of 3.5. Major differences from 2.0-3.0 can be summarized as:

Unified systems. Pretty much everything is a d20 roll to determine success. Other dice are used for damage, etc.

Attribute scores are almost never used directly: Instead a score has a linked modifier (Ie. a Str of 10 gives you a 0, while an 18 might be a +4 and a 8 might be a -1.) which is applied to a d20 roll to make an attribute check.

Saves are a simple set, instead of the many (and sometimes arbitrary) of 2nd.

Skills (including thieves skills) are a unified system. Every class gets a number of points/level (Thieves get the most, fighters the least) which can be applied to a large skill list. Skills are either in a class or 'cross class' which takes 2 points to raise by 1. Skill checks are the skill's level, the appropriate attribute modifier (see above) and a d20 versus a DC number (varies, but usually 15-25 depending on difficulty).

Feats are something characters gain as they level and add special tricks (I.E. adding a charge reaction), specific bonuses (A feat might make a character more poison resistant) or something else. Some classses (Fighters) get more feats than others.

Classes vary by books in play (of course) but a big 'concept' is prestige classes. These are special classes that must be multi-classed to (everyone can multiclass, no dual-classing required) and are generally more specific versions: for example in a theoretical 40k d20, "Commisar" might be a prestige class that gets morale-boosting powers.

Monsters are generally as 'deep' as PCs and statted similarly. Monsters can be buffed by adding PC class levels. (So a boss ork might be an ork+ 3 levels of Fighter.)

3.0 isn't a bad system 'core' but implementations can do good or bad things with it. For example, base 3.0 is seen as very exploitable, as certain characters can really trash the game if they can use certain feats and powers.

There really are not any "great changes." Pathfinder fixes 3.5's "technical bugs"--things like grappling rules and the wording of certain spells. The most noticeable difference between Pathfinder and 3.5 is that Pathfinder is committed to making the base classes playable through 20th level. In this, I believe they have largely succeeded. They also freshened up the DMG prestige classes, making some of those class features more worthwhile. You can download a free "Conversion Guide" from Paizo.com if you want more details on the changes.

If you like 3.5 and don't want to cross into 4E, Pathfinder is definitely for you. Paizo has a great release schedule for this system, including an advanced DMG guide, an advanced Player's guide, and a second MM. Paizo's setting for Pathfinder strikes me as pretty mediocre but YMMV. They have a lot published for it (a setting book and the Pathfinder Chronicles, Adventure Path, and Module periodical-style publications) if it does turn out to strike your fancy. But Pathfinder is really becoming less of a setting and more of a ruleset now that Wizards has abandoned 3.5.

Damn, Alpharius, wish we lived closer together. The RPing would be epic.

Ah, just saw that you've never played 3.5 . . . Okay, well then your real question is "what is the biggest difference between AD&D and 3.5"? Almost everything is different. I can summarize it by saying that the game becomes much more player-driven and visual. In AD&D, almost everything relied on the word of the DM. In 3.5, the rules are by comparison a sort of Players' Bill of Rights. No longer can the DM credibly say that the PCs cannot do X, Y, and Z because almost everything is covered in the ruleset in terms that leave little enough room for the DM's imagination. For example, movement and combat are all played out in 2D with a grid mat and minis. No more can the DM arbitrarily decide how near or far you are to something at the critical moment. As Balance has already noted, the mechanics are close to uniform with the Core Mechanic (rolling the d20, hoping for a high number) handling almost everything. There are no concepts even close to as counterintuitive as THAC0. In summary, I think 3.5 runs faster and fairer than AD&D without losing any of the capacity for deep RP, if that's what you and your group are willing to work for.

Manchu wrote:

Damn, Alpharius, wish we lived closer together. The RPing would be epic.

Me too my man, me too!

(I'm guessing then that you're a ways away from Massachusetts?)

I'm in Richmond, VA.

I forgot to mention that you would not need to get any 3.5 books if you wanted to start Pathfinder. All you need outside of minis, mats, and dice are the Core Rule Book (basically DMG + PHB) and the Bestiary (Monster Manual). These are very high quality print jobs with attractive page layouts and beautiful if somewhat sparse illustrations. You can get them very reasonably on Amazon.

The whole mat + minis thing is a bit odd, though I suppose you could just use a mat and counters.

I'm guessing some sort of 'dry erase' thing works best?

You don't really NEED the mat and minis to play I think - we've played 3.5 and now Pathfinder happily for years without it. You just need a group with a good imagination who won't try to quibble position too much.
I find Pathfinder to be pretty similar, but with the massive amount of stupid stuff phased out and some stuff made more interesting.

Also, the rules (a lot of them anyway) are available online.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ nice and well laid out, generally means players can build characters and you can build monsters and treasure easily without the book.

If you have played any Bioware/Black Isle designed RPGs on computer or console in the past, what ten years, you have been playing 3 or 3.5.

I think Icewind Dale 2 forward were all based heavily on the core D&D3+ rulesets.

Icewind Dale
Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance (on PS2 for me)
Neverwinter Nights and all expansions
Neverwinter Nights 2 and XP

Even the Knights of the Old Republic and Dragon Age series' have borrowed largely from those rules.
I might have missed some, but those are it.
I have fairly easily transitioned into playing in a Pathfinder Campaign, my first pen and paper RPG in 15 years, due to my experience with the above games.

On the minis/mat subject. We use em for ease of description.
Really helps when we have spent the past 15 minutes BSing about something completely unrelated to the game.
Which happens frequently.

Da Boss wrote:You don't really NEED the mat and minis to play I think - we've played 3.5 and now Pathfinder happily for years without it. You just need a group with a good imagination who won't try to quibble position too much.
I find Pathfinder to be pretty similar, but with the massive amount of stupid stuff phased out and some stuff made more interesting.

Also, the rules (a lot of them anyway) are available online.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/ nice and well laid out, generally means players can build characters and you can build monsters and treasure easily without the book.

That link is phenomenal!

Thank you very, very much!

skrulnik wrote:If you have played any Bioware/Black Isle designed RPGs on computer or console in the past, what ten years, you have been playing 3 or 3.5.

I think Icewind Dale 2 forward were all based heavily on the core D&D3+ rulesets.

Icewind Dale
Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance (on PS2 for me)
Neverwinter Nights and all expansions
Neverwinter Nights 2 and XP

Even the Knights of the Old Republic and Dragon Age series' have borrowed largely from those rules.
I might have missed some, but those are it.
I have fairly easily transitioned into playing in a Pathfinder Campaign, my first pen and paper RPG in 15 years, due to my experience with the above games.

Icewind Dale was 2nd... I think my version even used the old-style D&D logo!

KotoR was based off the Star Wars RPG Wizards did, which was an off-shoot of the d20 system. It wasn't quite compatible, and I've heard the best version of it was the recently canceled Saga edition. The early edition wasn't bad, but had some definite faults that hurt the overall 'feel' for me.

Balder's Gate: Dark Alliance, while a fun game, was really more of a Diablo clone and only vaguely used the d20 rules, if that.

Not sure about DA: O. I guess it might have some d20 influence, but not too much, really.

Balance wrote:
Icewind Dale was 2nd... I think my version even used the old-style D&D logo!

KotoR was based off the Star Wars RPG Wizards did, which was an off-shoot of the d20 system. It wasn't quite compatible, and I've heard the best version of it was the recently canceled Saga edition. The early edition wasn't bad, but had some definite faults that hurt the overall 'feel' for me.

Balder's Gate: Dark Alliance, while a fun game, was really more of a Diablo clone and only vaguely used the d20 rules, if that.

Not sure about DA: O. I guess it might have some d20 influence, but not too much, really.

I meant IWD2.

Also, I did not say they used the exact rules, but they adapted them quite closely.

I think those games are about as close as you can get with a non-MMO format.

And there were a heck of a lot of Mods for NWN that were straight translations of Paper adventures.

You don't NEED mat'n'minis in 3.5 like you don't NEED a measuring tape in 40k. Alph, if you're serious get yourself a mat and some markers from Chessex. You needn't waste money on pricey, ugly D&D minis if you don't want to--anything that will fit in a 1"x 1" sqaure on the mat will be fine. (Keep in mind that larger monsters are represented by taking up more squares.) Also, the SRD link DaBoss provided is for OGL d20 (basically, 3.5) rather than Pathfinder--just to be clear. It'll give you the basic idea about Pathfinder, of course.

Manchu wrote:You don't NEED mat'n'minis in 3.5 like you don't NEED a measuring tape in 40k. Alph, if you're serious get yourself a mat and some markers from Chessex. You needn't waste money on pricey, ugly D&D minis if you don't want to--anything that will fit in a 1"x 1" sqaure on the mat will be fine. (Keep in mind that larger monsters are represented by taking up more squares.) Also, the SRD link DaBoss provided is for OGL d20 (basically, 3.5) rather than Pathfinder--just to be clear. It'll give you the basic idea about Pathfinder, of course.

I didn't realize that the link was for '3.5' and not Pathfinder, though I suppose it is 'close enough' for "looking around" purposes!

And I think I'll go with your 1"x1" squares Mat advice too - thanks!

The SRD is awesome for 3.5 reference. I should have mentioned it to you sooner. The main structure of PF is still pretty close to this, as I understand.

Combine the SRD with Paizo's free conversion downloadable pdf and you pretty much have Pathfinder, I think. But the core book is well worth the money especially if you don't have any 3.5 books. Personally, I hate trying to play anything from PDF.

Agreed on the playing from PDFs thing...

I've been looking around at all the available stuff on Paizo's site, and there's lots of interesting things in there!

The Bestiary, the various cities and area books, and I like the look of the Devil and the upcoming Demon sourcebooks too.

Odds are I can find a Pathfinder group locally too!

If you plan to DM, I wouldn't recommend buying into the Paizo setting all at once. It's quality qua content but not really suited to everyone's taste. I think it's kind of lame, personally. But it is very thoroughly worked out and nicely presented.

Lame?

How so?

And, what would you recommend for a Pathfinder campaign instead?

Well, it's a bit like Realms meets Iron Kingdoms. There are all sorts of nation states that ape IRL cultures/periods. There's an Egyptian nation (Osirion) and an Arab region (don't remember the other names) and a French Revolution one, etc, etc., and that is what some people love. But to me it's over-generic. Balance was talking about Sandbox v. Railroad campaign styles earlier and I tend to prefer a "soft" Railroad sort of setting (i.e., a setting that heavily effects the drama-laden mostly linear plot) and that means having a more coherent world--like Dark Sun for example. Golarion is like a bunch of various campaigns all tied up together (FR) with the explanation of post-Westphalian nationality concept (IK).

An interesting idea is to just do what everyone used to do (locally) back when I started playing D&D.

The GM describes a small village, presumably with some nearby caves full of kobolds and maybe a few scary orcs.

As the party grows, more stuff gets defined by the GM.

And idea I had to add a sort of 'meta game' to this is to give each player 1 'Statement' per game session. A statement is a simple phrase that can impact the world and may guide rules, but is really just background. A statement could be "There's bad storms coming in." or it could be "My family used to be farmers in Florin."

And the worlds is built from these statements, as interpreted by the GM.

Manchu wrote:Well, it's a bit like Realms meets Iron Kingdoms. There are all sorts of nation states that ape IRL cultures/periods. There's an Egyptian nation (Osirion) and an Arab region (don't remember the other names) and a French Revolution one, etc, etc., and that is what some people love. But to me it's over-generic. Balance was talking about Sandbox v. Railroad campaign styles earlier and I tend to prefer a "soft" Railroad sort of setting (i.e., a setting that heavily effects the drama-laden mostly linear plot) and that means having a more coherent world--like Dark Sun for example. Golarion is like a bunch of various campaigns all tied up together (FR) with the explanation of post-Westphalian nationality concept (IK).

That does sound rather messy.

Is there a more 'singular vision' campaign setting available, something more akin to a Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms?

Balance wrote:An interesting idea is to just do what everyone used to do (locally) back when I started playing D&D.

The GM describes a small village, presumably with some nearby caves full of kobolds and maybe a few scary orcs.

As the party grows, more stuff gets defined by the GM.

And idea I had to add a sort of 'meta game' to this is to give each player 1 'Statement' per game session. A statement is a simple phrase that can impact the world and may guide rules, but is really just background. A statement could be "There's bad storms coming in." or it could be "My family used to be farmers in Florin."

And the worlds is built from these statements, as interpreted by the GM.

That's often how I started things out too.

Still a great way to get things rolling...

Alpharius wrote:Is there a more 'singular vision' campaign setting available, something more akin to a Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms?

Please don't let me sell Golarion short on your behalf. The main setting book is worth getting, even if just to steal ideas from, considering how nice it is. You may like one of the nations--or even something like the pantheon (which is pretty good, even I have to admit)--enough to make it the basis for your campaign world. As for other settings, I'm afraid Paizo only publishes the one at the moment. My advice boils down to this: if you have extra dollars, don't blow it all on Paizo's setting before you have the adequate lay of the land that browsing through the main setting book can give you.

Meanwhile, Balance reveals another great idea . . . I think my all-star RPG team would include Balance as GM with Alpharius, H.B.M.C., and RedS8n (at least) as the PCs. The downside is that such concentrated awesomeness would probably cause the galaxy to collapse in on itself.

Do you mean this one:

http://paizo.com/pathfinder/pathfinderChronicles/35E/v5748btpy84eo

So, start there, and see if I like it?

Yeah, that's the one I mean.

Manchu: I'm not sure what you mean about the SRD I supplied- it's not the 3.5 one, it's specifically for pathfinder. Click the link, the rules are the same as in the pathfinder rulebook. We're all using it in our pathfinder games!
(It's even got pathfinder specific monsters like the goblin dog and stuff in there.)
I'd still contend that 3.5 D'n'D is fine sans minis if you've got a group with good spatial imagination and who don't try to argue too much. We've been playing 3.5 and now pathfinder for 7 years without using them. I've used them a few times, and the 4th edition game I'm playing uses a magnetic whiteboard with A3 printed grid maps and little magnetic travel checkers pieces. I find the minis/tokens work well for tactical combat, but they're not essential.
Settings wise, I do like Eberron, though it is a bit like what you've described the pathfinder setting to be. If you can track down some of the 2nd E planescape stuff, well, planescape is awesome. A friend of mine is working on a Ravenloft conversion system too, and I think Pathfinder would work really well with Darksun.

Da Boss wrote:Manchu: I'm not sure what you mean about the SRD I supplied- it's not the 3.5 one, it's specifically for pathfinder. Click the link, the rules are the same as in the pathfinder rulebook. We're all using it in our pathfinder games!
(It's even got pathfinder specific monsters like the goblin dog and stuff in there.)
I'd still contend that 3.5 D'n'D is fine sans minis if you've got a group with good spatial imagination and who don't try to argue too much. We've been playing 3.5 and now pathfinder for 7 years without using them. I've used them a few times, and the 4th edition game I'm playing uses a magnetic whiteboard with A3 printed grid maps and little magnetic travel checkers pieces. I find the minis/tokens work well for tactical combat, but they're not essential.
Settings wise, I do like Eberron, though it is a bit like what you've described the pathfinder setting to be. If you can track down some of the 2nd E planescape stuff, well, planescape is awesome. A friend of mine is working on a Ravenloft conversion system too, and I think Pathfinder would work really well with Darksun.

Sounds awesome...

I'm drifting closer.

I'd prefer to stay old school 1E, but lack of players = time to move on?

My b, DaBoss. Didn't know there was a PFSRD, so this is cool to see. Still disagree with your assessment about the mat, however, for the reason that I would want tape measures even in a friendly game of 40k. But I do like a bit of DM v. PCs feel to my games, after all.

@Alpharius: If you like the old school D&D maybe try some of the non-mainstream systems? Mouse Guard (not so much its extremely complicated big brother, Burning Wheel) comes to mind. Lack of players is lack of players. I just thought you had an established group?

Manchu wrote:My b, DaBoss. Didn't know there was a PFSRD, so this is cool to see. Still disagree with your assessment about the mat, however, for the reason that I would want tape measures even in a friendly game of 40k. But I do like a bit of DM v. PCs feel to my games, after all.

@Alpharius: If you like the old school D&D maybe try some of the non-mainstream systems? Mouse Guard (not so much its extremely complicated big brother, Burning Wheel) comes to mind. Lack of players is lack of players. I just thought you had an established group?

Established group?

I wish!

No, no 1E group in my neck of the woods.

Some good leads, but nothing positive yet.

I'm fairly sure there's a Pathfinder group around me though...

The description makes me think of you trekking through forest, scenting the spore of elusive gamers who cluster in clearings, munching on crisps and drinking sugary drinks warily.

My group are long established, and I start to feel like maybe that's sort of a problem. An injection of fresh blood would be good!

Manchu: I think it comes down to the group's tastes and so on, about the mat and stuff. I can see the advantages, but I wouldn't want anyone to be put off giving a system a go because they thought it was essential.

After having had a chance to look through a LOT of Pathfinder stuff, I have to say, I think I rather like it!

Of course, 3.5, or 3.75 is different enough to what I am used to, to what I remember, I'm going to try and find a local group to give it a good run with.

THIS should be easier than my goal of finding an old school RPG group to game with.

Another question - is there a good Pathfinder forum out there? (Not the official one)